<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Apparently we will not get an understanding and we will probably
be told soon that this is going off topic, so short answer</p>
<p>Eh --> No, maybe you would like to quote Mozilla or the W3C
too, all of those organizations are financed by the big companies
and are promoting their interests (specs, DRM, etc), then would
you really trust them?</p>
<p>A full node does not have to validate all tx and blocks, I am not
aware of any P2P system organized with peers and intermediate
nodes (with no incentive) that did survive (diaspora for example),
and the most famous one (who btw is handling much more traffic
than what you describe) is doing well because there is an
intrinsic incentive for the users, see my comment here
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/final-report-next-generation-internet-consultation">https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/content/final-report-next-generation-internet-consultation</a>,
surprising to see that nobody raised those issues during the
consultation</p>
<p>Paradoxally crypto currencies allow now to reward/sustain other
systems, then probably they should concentrate first on how to
reward/sustain themselves, different ideas have surfaced to reward
the full nodes but still seem very far to materialize<br>
</p>
<p>Coming back again to the subject, does anyone have any idea of
who are behind the existing full nodes and how to rank them
according to their participation to the network? Up to now there
has been quasi no discussion about what are the plans for the full
nodes which tends to suggest that this is obvious<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 30/03/2017 à 03:14, Jared Lee
Richardson a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD1TkXvx=RKvjC8BUstwtQxUUQwG4eiU9XmF1wr=bU=xcVg5WQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-size:12.8px">I have heard
such theory before, it's a complete mistake to think that
others would run full nodes to protect their business and then
yours,<br>
<br>
It is a complete mistake to think that others would create a
massive website to share huge volumes of information without
any charges or even any advertising revenue.<br>
<br>
</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_popular_websites</a><br>
</span><br>
Wikipedia, 5th largest website. Well, I guess there's some
exceptions to the complete mistake, eh?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Relying on other nodes to provide verification for certain
types of transactions is completely acceptable. If I'm paying
a friend $100, or paying my landlord $500, that's almost
certainly totally fine. There's nothing that says SPV nodes
can't source verifications from multiple places to prevent one
source from being compromised. There's also some proposed
ideas for fraud proofs that could be added, though I'm not
familiar with how they work. If verification was a highly in
demand service, but full nodes were expensive, companies would
spring up that offered to verify transactions for a miniscule
fee per month. They couldn't profit from 100 customers, but
they could profit from 10,000 customers, and their reputation
and business would rely on trustworthy verification services.<br>
<br>
I certainly wouldn't suggest any of those things for things
like million dollar purchase, or a purchase where you don't
know the seller and have no recourse if something goes wrong,
or a purchase where failure to complete has life-altering
consequences. Those transactions are the vast minority of
transactions, but they need the additional security of
full-node verification. Why is it unreasonable to ask them to
pay for it, but not also ask other people who really don't
need that security to pay for it? If a competing blockchain
successfully offers both high security and low-fee users
exactly what that particular user needs, they have a major
advantage against one that only caters to one group or the
other.<br>
<br>
> <span style="font-size:12.8px">Running a full node is
trivial and not expensive for people who know how to do it,
even with much bigger blocks,<br>
<br>
This logic does not hold against the scale of the numbers.
Worldwide 2015 transaction volume was 426 billion and is
growing by almost 10% per year. In Bitcoin terms, that's
4.5 GB blocks, and approximately $30,000 in bandwidth a
month just to run a pruning node. And there's almost no
limit to the growth - 426 billion transactions is despite
the fact that the majority of humans on earth are unbanked
and did not add a single transaction to that number.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">I don't believe the argument
that Bitcoin can serve all humans on earth is any more valid
than the argument that any computer hardware should be able
to run a node. Low node operational costs mean a
proportional penalty to Bitcoin's usability, adoption, and
price. Low transaction fee costs mean a proportional high
node operational cost, and therefore possibly represent node
vulnerabilities or verification insecurities.<br>
<br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">There's a balancing point in
the middle somewhere that achieves the highest possible
Bitcoin usability without putting the network at risk, and
providing layers of security only for the transactions that
truly need it and can justify the cost of such security.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
<br>
</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 3:33 PM,
Aymeric Vitte <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:vitteaymeric@gmail.com" target="_blank">vitteaymeric@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>I have heard such theory before, it's a complete
mistake to think that others would run full nodes to
protect their business and then yours, unless it is
proven that they are decentralized and independent</p>
<p>Running a full node is trivial and not expensive for
people who know how to do it, even with much bigger
blocks, assuming that the full nodes are still
decentralized and that they don't have to fight against
big nodes who would attract the traffic first<br>
</p>
<p>I have posted many times here a small proposal, that
exactly describes what is going on now, yes miners are
nodes too... it's disturbing to see that despite of Tera
bytes of BIPs, papers, etc the current situation is
happening and that all the supposed decentralized system
is biased by centralization</p>
<p>Do we know what majority controls the 6000 full nodes?</p>
<div>
<div class="h5"> <br>
<div class="m_5062382881877176539moz-cite-prefix">Le
29/03/2017 à 22:32, Jared Lee Richardson via
bitcoin-dev a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">> <span style="font-size:12.8px">Perhaps
you are fortunate to have a home computer that
has more than a single 512GB SSD. Lots of
consumer hardware has that little storage.</span><br>
<br>
<span style="font-size:12.8px">That's very poor
logic, sorry. Restricted-space SSD's are not a
cost-effective hardware option for running a
node. Keeping blocksizes small has
significant other costs for everyone. Comparing
the cost of running a node under arbitrary
conditons A, B, or C when there are far more
efficient options than any of those is a very
bad way to think about the costs of running a
node. You basically have to ignore the
significant consequences of keeping blocks
small.<br>
<br>
If node operational costs rose to the point
where an entire wide swath of users that we do
actually need for security purposes could not
justify running a node, that's something
important for consideration. For me, that
translates to modern hardware that's relatively
well aligned with the needs of running a node -
perhaps budget hardware, but still modern - and
above-average bandwidth caps.</span>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:12.8px">You're free to
disagree, but your example only makes sense to
me if blocksize caps didn't have serious
consequences. Even if those consequences are
just the threat of a contentious fork by
people who are mislead about the real
consequences, that threat is still a
consequence itself.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at
9:18 AM, David Vorick via bitcoin-dev <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">Perhaps you are
fortunate to have a home computer that
has more than a single 512GB SSD. Lots
of consumer hardware has that little
storage. Throw on top of it standard
consumer usage, and you're often left
with less than 200 GB of free space.
Bitcoin consumes more than half of that,
which feels very expensive, especially
if it motivates you to buy another
drive.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra" dir="auto">I have
talked to several people who cite this as
the primary reason that they are reluctant
to join the full node club.</div>
</div>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_5062382881877176539mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div><span class=""><pre class="m_5062382881877176539moz-signature" cols="72">--
Zcash wallets made simple: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets" target="_blank">https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-<wbr>wallets</a>
Bitcoin wallets made simple: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets" target="_blank">https://github.com/Ayms/<wbr>bitcoin-wallets</a>
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/getblocklist" target="_blank">http://peersm.com/getblocklist</a>
Check the 10 M passwords list: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/findmyass" target="_blank">http://peersm.com/findmyass</a>
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://torrent-live.org" target="_blank">http://torrent-live.org</a>
Peersm : <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peersm.com" target="_blank">http://www.peersm.com</a>
torrent-live: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live" target="_blank">https://github.com/Ayms/<wbr>torrent-live</a>
node-Tor : <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor" target="_blank">https://www.github.com/Ayms/<wbr>node-Tor</a>
GitHub : <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="m_5062382881877176539moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms" target="_blank">https://www.github.com/Ayms</a></pre>
</span></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Zcash wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/zcash-wallets</a>
Bitcoin wallets made simple: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets">https://github.com/Ayms/bitcoin-wallets</a>
Get the torrent dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/getblocklist">http://peersm.com/getblocklist</a>
Check the 10 M passwords list: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://peersm.com/findmyass">http://peersm.com/findmyass</a>
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://torrent-live.org">http://torrent-live.org</a>
Peersm : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.peersm.com">http://www.peersm.com</a>
torrent-live: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live">https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live</a>
node-Tor : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor">https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor</a>
GitHub : <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.github.com/Ayms">https://www.github.com/Ayms</a></pre></body></html>